Bangladesh

Discrepancy in Dhaka

ON 6th DECEMBER 2012 the presiding judge of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal, Mohammed Nizamul Huq, passed an order requiring two members of The Economist to appear before the court, demanding that they explain how we have come by e-mails and conversations between himself and Ahmed Ziauddin, a lawyer of Bangladeshi origins based in Belgium. The tribunal was established in 2010 to consider accusations of war crimes committed in 1971, during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan.

The Economist has heard 17 hours of recorded telephone conversations and seen over 230 e-mails between the two men. This material is confidential and we are bound by law and the British press’s code of conduct not to reveal such information except in matters of the most serious public interest. We did not solicit the material, nor pay for it, nor commit ourselves to publish it.

These e-mails, if genuine, would indeed raise questions about the workings of the court and we are bound to investigate them as fully as we can. It was in the course of those investigations that we contacted the two men.

Our investigations are continuing. Once they are concluded and if we consider the allegations contained in them to have merit, we will publish them. Meanwhile, we are publishing a short account of our dealings with Mr Huq and Mr Ahmed. These, we believe, have a bearing both on the tribunal’s proceedings and on the order of December 6th.

Mr Huq is a Supreme Court judge and “chairman” of a trio of judges on the tribunal. There is no jury and the court can impose the death penalty. The verdict in its first case could come within days. Mr Ahmed is an expatriate Bangladeshi who is an academic specialising in international law who lives in Brussels. The two men have known each other for 25 years, as they were human-rights campaigners and Mr Ahmed’s late brother had been a student friend of the judge. Mr Ahmed is not just an international lawyer, he is also the director of the Bangladesh Centre for Genocide Studies in Belgium, which is dedicated to ending what he has called “the ingrained culture of impunity” surrounding the war crimes in Bangladesh.

The order includes a description of Mr Huq’s relationship with Mr Ahmed. It explains that the tribunal is based on “new law”, so the judges need to “take assistance of researchers from inside and outside the country”. It names Mr Ahmed as just such an expert. “During the proceedings of the trial and orders the Chairman also took assistance from him,” it says.

Speaking to The Economist in Brussels on December 4th, Mr Ahmed had said something similar, “It’s up to judges to decide where they are going to get research support or other support they need. They are quite entitled to do it. The more so when they really don’t have that research backup [in Bangladesh]. [They ask for help] if they feel if there are people more informed about the issue, especially where [international law] is so new in Bangladesh. I’m not really advising him, but if there is a question then I try to respond.”

But the characterisation in the order and from Mr Ahmed contradicts what the judge told us in a taped interview. On December 5th, the evening before the court issued its order, Mr Huq insisted that Mr Ahmed was not helping him. He admitted that they talk, but denied that he had a part in helping prepare documents or doing anything in any official capacity. He said that for anyone to play such a role would be quite wrong.

“As judges, we cannot take help from third person and outsiders,” Mr Huq said. Asked whether they sometimes exchange e-mails about the tribunal, he says “No, no, no, regarding tribunal, no talks regarding the judgment or regarding the proceedings, no.” Later, he said, “A Supreme Court judge, we do not talk even with our wife regarding the tribunal.”

Judges generally have to be careful if they discuss cases with third parties, because to do so could lead to bias or the impression that they have come under the influence of someone who has nothing to do with the proceedings.

In his interview in Brussels on the previous day, Mr Ahmed had likewise told us that he has “no relationship whatsoever” with court. He can send the judge messages if he wants—“generally though I don’t,” he said, “he’s a judge after all.”

Several questions are raised by all this. On what basis did the judge select the experts who would help him? Why was Mr Ahmed’s role not revealed to the court and to the public until the tribunal order on December 6th, after we had contacted him? The order refers to the presiding judge of the tribunal “receiving the support [of Mr Ahmed] on the developments on International Criminal law throughout the world” and taking assistance “during the proceedings of the trial and orders”. Why then did he tell us on December 5th that the two men had had no talks regarding the tribunal or regarding the proceedings? And why did he say that it would not be appropriate for a Supreme Court judge to talk to others about the proceedings?

i just seen this e-mail regarding the truth comes out by the economist and the world meadia,thank you to economist, my party was awami league from last 30 years, from today me and my friends coligues we have decided(in our private meeting) not to support or joint any meeting with those hasina government who wants to kill the inocent peopple of opposition party,hasina came to power in the name of war crime and she will lost power the same issu syed shamim ahmed

I know why you are enjoying all this because it hurts you to see you these persons behind the bars and being tried, since you thought these are the persons who will make Bangladesh an islamist militia state just like afganistan and pakistan.

War criminals can not be Islamic leaders! A political party who abuses Islam by killing 3 million people should be hanged, I think this government is too soft on the war criminals ...public will do the Job in 10 mins...do you know what happened to Mussolini of Italy after WWII. So, the alleged criminals are not Islamic Leaders but Fanatics of Bangladesh!

if they indeed killed 3 million people, even one person, you didn't need to resort to this kind of sham trial. you would be able to punish them using existing panel code. but all your lies, propaganda and campaign has been exposed by this recorded conversation.
The real fanatics are the BAL ist and people like you who shut down their mind and close their eyes.

Tribunal must be fair and unbiased. It must not be politicized. Politically motivated trial can not gain anything. Yes, who has committed crime they must be punished, no doubt about it.

I think you know AL tried with word "war crime tribunal" but failed to continue, do you know why? they know BJI leaders are not war criminal, they certified. Now they changed the word crime against humanity. There is no definition (law terminology this is just not only definition) about it in the 1973 act.

This act was only for war criminal not for crime against humanity. Trio ministers signed an agreement not to prosecute the 195 war criminals which was identified after a long searched.

It is shame for us, we forgiven war criminals and now trying to hang those who did not faced any accusation against them in any thana in the whole Bangladesh immediate after 1971.

Tribunal must be fair and unbiased. It must not be politicized. Politically motivated trial can not gain anything. Yes, who has committed crime they must be punished, no doubt about it.

I think you know AL tried with word "war crime tribunal" but failed to continue, do you know why? they know BJI leaders are not war criminal, they certified. Now they changed the word crime against humanity. There is no definition (law terminology this is just not only definition) about it in the 1973 act.

This act was only for war criminal not for crime against humanity. Trio ministers signed an agreement not to prosecute the 195 war criminals which was identified after a long searched.

It is shame for us, we forgiven war criminals and now trying to hang those who did not faced any accusation against them in any thana in the whole Bangladesh immediate after 1971.

Once Justice Nijamula Haque said as a Justice we never talk and share regarding tribunal daily works and activity even our wife. Why do he talks with Dr. Jiyauddina. Dr jiyauddina currently living in Belgium and working as a BOARD of ADVISORS of India; pls see, http://www.wragindia.org/campa_icc.html]. Dr jiyauddina also involved in such a activity that proved his advise can personally influenced the nature of Tribunal judgment.
If this really influence the present judgment, then government can accused any person and can hang on or give death punishment. None can say anything. Justice will say I took advise from international lawyer, he said u have to be hanged , no alternative……………? Why Dr Jiyauddina working as a advisor with Indian criminal advisor board. What is the interest of Indian Government regarding Bangladeshi people “Deloar Hosain Saidi”?

Of course, war criminals can't be Islamic leaders & vice versa. However, why does someone have to take ill measures to prove them criminal? The trial is still going on; we have,& hope you have too, seen the proceedings haven't yet unequivocally been able to prove their responsibility in '71 war killings. How could you comment on an issue under trial? Moreover, the comment made by you "...public will do the Job in 10 mins.." indicates you want killing of the accused ones without trial, how ridiculous! Rather you prove yourself to be fanatic!

Have you seen any of them to do any crime or did your father or fore father see them to do any crime? Do you know what is meant by War- Crime? Did you or any researcher in Bangladesh conducted any research to find out how many people were died in the civil war of 1971, how many were wounded? The clear answer is NO. No research, I mean field research, has yet been done to figure out the real number of victims in the CW of 1971. Secondly, So far I understand from your approach, you dont even know what is meant by fanatic. Look at yourself, what are you? Where are you from? Who do you follow? You follow the thieves, the smugglers, the betrayers like, Sajeda Chwy, Motiya, Eng Musharraf gong. The present age is not the age of MUssolini, just remember? It is the age of digital, and the age of Tit for Tat either physically of virtually or intellectually.

What is ICT is trying to achive by fabricated stories of crimes? You can fool people for sometime, but you cannot fool them all the time. The stories were presented about Sayedy seems 100 percent fabricated. How do you explain about the abduction of Hindu man (Shukhronjon Bali) from the gate of ICT? He was going to tell the court that Sayedy did not kill his brother, Pakistani Army did. You may fabricate some stories and kill those people and possibly many more, but in long run you will not be able to hide the truth.

Your knowledge about the degree of crime in WWII makes me laugh. The people they have arrested did not have any power to do anything in comparison to Hitlar or Mussolini. These people took the side of keeping undivided Pakistan, is it a crime in the eye of law? Certainly it is not. You may ask the legal experts this question. This is why Awami League changed their position (if you have noticed) regarding these trials. They miserably failed to prove that Sayedy did the crime.

The Economist should publish the complete story, there should not be anything hidden. They have the power to give a death panelty to those people, you think people should take this lightly? You must be dreaming.

Oh, really? Wartime crimes are tried in regular court? Tell this to the relatives of the Jews killed by Hitler. Oh, you cannot, because they have all the money in the world, oops!
How about Nuremberg Trial? How about Rome statute and all these? I understand, you cannot criticize them! double standard!

Mr. Mostofa, When did you became god! So Mr. God - hang 'em all in 10 mins. Go ahead! Then again don't tell us those bull crap theory of 3 million - read Dr. Sharmila Bose's book "Dead Reckoning" where she proved that not even 30 thousands were dead in that nine months fighting. Most part of it was Bengali-Bihari killing each other (Civil War) and later part it was Pakistan Army killing innocent Bengalis or Muktijhoddhas killing Pakistanis. So where did those ten Islamic leaders fit in your three million theory? Oh I know now, that our Mr. God doesn't like Islamic people so hanging them Islamic is his "Mantra" - what does it make you then, God or Iblis?

no problem who are they? but why an judicial person talking with judgement an government person and government,, its not called justice.. so stop the say lie ,,,maximum BAl leader are Razakar , like as sajeda, MOKHA, samsol, Musarrop. why dont judge them.. why,, ??

Do you know the definition of War Criminals? I believe people like you does not know or you know the definition only suit to you. you said about 3 million people killed in 71. It was a blunt lie. this current ICT is a stage Drama set by the leftist and some Razakars like Shariar kabir, Muntasir Mamun etc. and BAL. If you really want justice you can do open the collaborators act. and start the pending cases left in 1975. I think supporters, activist of BAL are FANATICS, FACIST which they shoewed in 28th Oct. 2006 and two days before killing Bishawjit. Wake up you DUMP supporter of BAL.

you used the word ''War criminals '' , can u tell me who is ''War criminals'' ?????? 195 pakistani solders or the man who assit them to kill people during war . The govmnt having a trial for '' crime against humanity '' not ''War criminals ''. because they can't bring them in trial .so govmet is eye washing the people . On the other hand whom they brought for trial they did not do any crime which already very clear from the trial process . Govnmt trying to hang some people who is working against awamiluge . their fault is only they dont support awamiuge & work for islam . U see only the oposition leader is brought for trial no one else particularly the people who are working for jamaeet islami . now this is proved taht a great dramma of trail is arranged which is clear from the conversation of nasim (justice ). He is trying to confirm a verdict which gvmnt told to do . he is not a justice but a awamiluge supporter .

If hanging Jamaat leaders is your only goal, then why staging this darama of so called "International" court. If you and your co-horts are fair enough send the case to ICC (International Criminal Court) and world will see who commited the crimes.

Mr mostofa are you with mental stability? Do you know before the court no emotion should be used.
Exercise ur judgement, don't be blind.
We want actuall criminal should be punished with proper evidenced and fair trial not name the court just mockery of judgement.

We are descent people and Bangladesh is a part of many international organizations, so we have to do this trial and Tribunal is trying to do it in international format to show the international community.

What is going on in Bangladesh is a flagrant violation of international and domestic laws in the name of ‘International War-crime Tribunal’ where some members of the government and the prosecution team have announced when the trial is going to finish, how it is going to finish, and which individuals are going to be executed.

I am requesting from the youth of Bangladeshis to unveil the truth. If the government doing the the wrong or oppressing the innocents it is the duty to the whole mankind to resist the ill-motivated tribunals. But, if the tribunal able to ensure justice its also duty to all the human being to support the tribunal to end the historical crime, if committed truly asked by the so secularists (absolutely anti-moralist who committing corruption in the country)

Now the truth has come out, the people who want to raise questions about the merit of this news - can you & the tribunal explain why was Mr Ahmed’s role not revealed to the court and to the public until the tribunal order on 6th December - before been contacted by Economist?
Now we the new generation waiting to see if anyone can establish any proven contact between the two persons, and if that is established; The world will laugh at this tribunal which the opposition parties in Bangladesh been claiming as staged drama to kill opposition & make them week for political purpose in the name of trial.

Dear Economist, a political witch hunting is ongoing in the name of War Crimes Trial in Bangladesh. Please stand in the right side of history and publish all the documents you have. We will be grateful to you forever.

How is it political hunting? This current government declared the trial of war criminals in their Election manifesto, is not it? and the got the majority in the Parliament, we voted this government for the trial of the war criminals and they are bound to do what they have promised...Do not try to fool the people around the world...you guys act as Nazis of WWII and we can not forgive you!

What is witch-hunting? Are you denying the massacar of 1971? Are you denying Golam Azam was the ameer of Jamat in 1971? Are you denying that Muzahid was the President of Islami Chatra Sangha at 1971? Are you denying that Sayeedee was not a pety rajakar at 1971?

There are no war criminals in Bangladesh until the tribunal passes the verdict against the accused. But before the tribunal passes such verdict it should operate justly. Now that the whole is story is out it looks like that the judges were ganging up with the politicians and prosecutors to commit the travesty of justice. Some of the judges of the tribunals are criminals themselves.

What does it mean to you . Does it mean they were war criminals or does it carry significant evidence of their involvement in 1971. A free, fair and NON-biased trail is in-evident. The economist has revealed some true facts through their findings . thanks "The Economist "

Please publish the full context of audio that you possessed. It's very important to unmask state sponsored ill plot to punish opponents. This AL has long history to kill peoples only because of their political rival. They talk about democracy but communist in nature. Most significant of their ministers are from communist party.

being a laws student...I feel shame for entire judiciary in bangladesh..cant say enough to thank economist....we all know there was something behind.....so now the truth has come in light..not only that jugdes but also the govt. must resign without delay...

we demand for an independent judicial enquiery for this shameful incident
we also demand for immediate action to declare this court as void ab initio....

how do you feel the hacking issue? Do you feel shame or not? I haven't seen anything like that in your comment so what does it mean...you are one of the war criminal's and could be a member of Jamaat -Shibir. As a law student you should have asked how they got someone's personal materials?

"The Economist has heard 17 hours of recorded telephone conversations and seen over 230 e-mails between the two men. This material is confidential and we are bound by law and the British press’s code of conduct not to reveal such information except in matters of the most serious public interest." - Don't you think that it's a matter of serious public interest?

If you are blindly government supporter then surely you will not find any logic. The was hacked and illegal. But what is your opinion when this judiciary persons talks unlawfully while in charge of law. Think about that first and then come with the hacking...........

Hey Mostofa,
If Bellal Rashid is someone as you mentioned- then you should file your case otherwise you are a great lair and fanatics extremist Awami Indian Agent.

I see you have opposed so many opinion. My questioned is WHY YOU ARE BURNING ???? You have taken the lease to divide the Nation and make a chaotic situation in home to home; family to family?? If so then My question is- for WHOM? To WHOM you have been obliged to distress our beloved Bangladesh.

If our production is being stopped, Our development is being hampered and our social cohesion is being damaged then your payer could be highly benefited and happy to see, is it?

Don't brand the people? Try to unite the Nation of Bangladesh for their safety and security, living with dignity and honor and drive them towards peace and prosperity by stopping these nonsense drama trail.

If you are so keen, then bring them first- whose were identified war criminal and who release them????

Do not try to fishing to fulfill your desires for your payer like Mr Huq and Mr Ahmed, in undue means.
Be honest and reasonable!!!!!

The Question is, HOW did Economist get that so called 17 hours voice record? By using some bug or tapping or hacking? Is this legal? Isn't that a violation of privacy? Before proceeding to blame Ziauddin or Nasim, we must find the answer.

"The Economist has heard 17 hours of recorded telephone conversations and seen over 230 e-mails between the two men. This material is confidential and we are bound by law and the British press’s code of conduct not to reveal such information except in matters of the most serious public interest." - Don't you think that it's a matter of serious public interest?

you know hacking is illegal but you don't know illegal tribunal,illegal jurisdiction,illegal awami demand.illegal blame to the some politician is legal or illegal.you should know this first then find the answer

I think hacking someone's account is illegal...then how an illegal act can legalized something. Economist should answer this questions...and if someone else hacked then why they are trusting the materials with economist? Economist should also answer this questions. Please do not give us crap...I think economist is paid by the allies of war criminals to as their propaganda machine...Please look for the justice of 71 victims not for the war criminals.

The Economist generally have been an exception with regard to Bangladesh and this internally constituted "International War Crime Tribunal". Economist has raised justifiable questions on the legal framework, the process of appointing Judges, Competence & Impartiality of some of them and the general motive behind this tribunal. Economist has also raised important questions about the way the current Bangladeshi government has operated and their utter disregard for the rights of individuals, groups and other political parties.

In that context, Economist has again done a great service in investigating what appears to be the most serious breach of all judicial norm by this "Tribunal". I welcome this piece instead of outright publishing the materials as alleged to have been obtained by the Economist. I welcome too the controlled, reasoned and measured tone of this piece when it was too easy to take the "Tribunal" for its audacious and most disgusting example of abuse of power. Suffice to say, it is at best questionable whether the "Tribunal" has jurisdiction over the Economist to issue the "Order" that it has.

I just would like to add a few more matters to what has been raised in this piece. I feel Economist has been too controlled and unduly restrained in its initial response to the in-genuine and shameful act of the "Chairman" of this questionable tribunal.

Those who know Bangladesh will know that it is a nation where people are very proud of their views. They are deeply emotional and strongly engaged in politics and political debate. An unfortunate by product is that the strong emotion and conviction oversteps often the line of reasoned debate, tolerance of difference and freedom of expression. Bangladesh is a nation where people are deeply, openly and visibly divided along the political lines, to the extent that one block hates the other. The Civil Society, if there is one, is also deeply divided and seldom guided by reason, logic, tolerance and respect for others.

A section of that Civil Society who claimed to be left leaning, secularists and pro-western, has for long campaigned against Jamaat for their stance in 1971. In their campaign, they have been so blind that they have never demonstrated an understanding between the two different positions - a political stand against the breakaway of a sovereign nation and the heinous act of war crime and crime against humanity. This group has gone to the extent of holding a mock trial where they named many of Jamaat Leaders as guilty of war crimes and "executed" them. The "Chair", Mr Islam and Dr Ahmed Ziauddin are both from that block. In fact, The defence team challenged the appropriateness of the Chair continuing to hear these cases given his involvement in the "civil" campaign against many of those accused. Sadly, in Bangladesh, the issue of perceived bias is an alien concept and as such, the "tribunal" opined that he can continue to chair this panel of three judges. Dr Ahmed Ziauddin is also from that Block who campaigned for execution of those accused for many years. His "Bangladesh Centre for Genocide Studies" is an evidence and result of such campaign on his part. As late as in 2009, 2010, 2011 Mr Ziauddin has participated and presented "papers" in Bangladesh campaigning for execution of some accused. This is no secret. The 2009 "Seminar" he participated was at the Prestigious, and High Profile National War Museum, a premiere government museum. This was also extensively covered by the Media. To seek assistance from such individual is, therefore, an act of most questionable nature, a disgrace and complete violation of all norm of natural justice. If the Tribunal had any spine, shame, decency, sense of justice and fairness, the Chairman would have stepped down and the whole matter would have been re-constituted.

Of course, some detractors will say, of course the Chairman had every right to engage anyone he deemed had a role to play. Let me say to you guys, I do not disagree for a second. But there are processes that need to be followed for such engagement. The Tribunal could have done one or more of the following -
If the Tribunal is as inexperience as they admit they are, and a point the Defence raised right from the start, they should have appointed official Amicus Curie who would have assisted them. The Tribunal could also have appointed special Counsel, Law Officers, Advisers, Researchers to assist them.
The Other option would have been to appoint Ahmed Ziauddin as a Prosecutor or as an expert witness.

The point is not that the likes of Mr Ziauddin should not have been involved, the point is the manner he has been engaged raises very serious questions about the impartiality, competence and appetite for fairness, justice and respect for the rule of law. This latest saga has made this already discredited "tribunal" an almost laughable entity, a government instrument of injustice, political suppression.

Following from the above, question now is what should the Economist do?

Well, I am almost alarmed at the tone of this piece that Economist has published as a sort of prelude.

I accept that Economist has a duty to respect confidentiality of individuals. In the aftermath of Leveson, it is almost inconceivable that any British based news-magazine will want to do such thing. But, as Economist has conceded above, where issues of major public interest is involved, there is an exception.

What is then the public interest engaged here? Answer is simple - many serous issues of public interest is engaged.

This tribunal threatens the very core of Bangladeshi nation. It has already cost Bangladesh its prized national unity, national identity and its image around the world. The Constitution and continued operation of this tribunal has demonstrated its capacity to tear apart the stability, political plurality, freedom and dignity that Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi nationals have enjoyed. Dozens, if not hundreds and thousands of lives are at stake who are very likely to be hanged and openly executed. Their families which will take the toll of directly involved individuals to hundreds of thousands whose life would be turned upside down. The operation and ultimate decisions of this tribunal may bring the end of multiparty democratic practices in Bangladesh. Most alarming of all, this tribunal may trigger a civil strife capable of turning into a civil war.

Given the severity of the consequences of the operation of this Tribunal, what stronger public interest could there be to persuade the Economist Editor? Of course, my fear is that in the post leveson era, in the era of war on terrorism, in the generally anti-islamic global climate, the British government may well play an underhand to prevent the Economist from publishing the matter.

However, I remain optimistic. Given the years of track record of Economist as a responsible, serious and objective publication, it will rise above the challenge and publish what it has unearthed - the most serious bombshell that most conclusively tells the world what this tribunal is, a Kangaroo Court designed to suppress political opposition and to ensure the grip of the current blood thirsty Bangladeshi government.

It is very sad that a newspaper as reputed as the Economist would follow the notorious path of 'hacking' the private conversations of a judge of Bangladesh, let alone, any country, unless that is for public interest. Now you need to identify what is public interest? To answer that you need to weigh between the countless victims of 1971, whose pains are not a concern of the economist, and the few collaborators of 1971 who were the civil superior during 1971, leaders of Razakar, Al-Badr, Al-shams, who shamelessly directed the Pakistan Army to the whereabouts of religious and political minorities in a systematic manner. Since the inception of ICT-BD, the Economist never made a report concerning the painful experiences of the victims of 1971, never uttered a word of woe about the brutal massacar of 1971 in Bangladesh by the Pakistan army and the civil superior political leaders of bangladesh. I can only hope the Economist will send their two reporters to ICT-BD for explaining their position. It would be too much to expect that the Economist will feel the pain of the victims of 1971.

Peaceaxiom! What a delusional, insulting and disgusting guise you have acquired. It appears you are unable to understand what public interest is. Public interest is the interest of those accused (they are not guilty yet, but i guess you do not understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"), interest of justice that is for the tribunal to be transparent, open and fair. Public interest is that the Judges should be free from external influence. On this occasion, with all due respect, it appears the Judge has breached his oath of office, disrespected his mandate, and completely violated all sense of fairness. Of course, if he felt the need, he should have sought support in the recongnised way from those with genuine expertise and not hide behind technology and converse with known biased individuals at the comfort of own bedroom.

Today we see that how bias to party or self image keeping style control our judges decision making. But there is no observer over their statement, there is no investigation against their bias or mistakes. But price is paying by life. what a country?

''The Economist has heard 17 hours of recorded telephone conversations and seen over 230 e-mails between the two men''
Who gives you the authority to bug peoples skype conversation in banglaesh?Why are you this much concern about this tribunal?Are you sure that,you dnt work for any side?